Should High school be optional? | Golden Skate

Should High school be optional?

megsk8z

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Mandatory. Otherwise we can go back to the days of 10 year olds running the equivalent of spinning machines.
There is so much to learn today that school does not teach, I can understand the reason for this question.
A good school will teach you how to think, not what to think.
A good school will give you something to think about.

My personal opinion is that school doesn't teach enough life skills these days. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone forced to take a home ec or a shop class. But we have so many things that kids need to learn and evidently not everyone's parents teach them:

How to dress for a job interview
A little respect
Budgeting 101
How to cross the street (Hint: It is not striding in front of me, weaving and bopping and daring me to hit you.)
Some internet usage experience
Some basic spelling and punctuation and not IM speak.

Okay, I now realize I am being curmudgeonly. So I'll let others chime in.
 

jennylovskt

Medalist
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Mandatory. Otherwise we can go back to the days of 10 year olds running the equivalent of spinning machines.
There is so much to learn today that school does not teach, I can understand the reason for this question.
A good school will teach you how to think, not what to think.
A good school will give you something to think about.

My personal opinion is that school doesn't teach enough life skills these days. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone forced to take a home ec or a shop class. But we have so many things that kids need to learn and evidently not everyone's parents teach them:

How to dress for a job interview
A little respect
Budgeting 101
How to cross the street (Hint: It is not striding in front of me, weaving and bopping and daring me to hit you.)
Some internet usage experience
Some basic spelling and punctuation and not IM speak.

Okay, I now realize I am being curmudgeonly. So I'll let others chime in.

I agree it should be Mandatory. No question about it. I wasn't sure why someone is even considering high school being an option? Dipyramidal did not explain it. The level of education in the population is one of the criteria to be used to measure whether a country is a developed or developing country. Why would anyone consider to scale back the education?

School cannot teach everything. Parents have to take a part of the responsibility on their children's education. Life skills, such as sewing, baby caring, cooking, etc. should be learned from other sources so school could focus on the basic, intellectual development and studies.

I think the question is how to make the school more competitive in order to meet the ever growing international challenges. I think the elementary, middle, and high schools in Norh America, Canada and US, in general, are putting too much energy on the decoratiing the process of learning instead of focusing on the actual learning. The school curriculums are not high enough to be competitive to, let's say, Asian's. Take math as an example.

Change is definitely needed.
 
Last edited:

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Without a high school education - let alone a college degree - it's very difficult to get a good job. I don't see how high school could be optional in today's world - it's not even 'enough'.

Also, most people lack the maturity to be out in the real world.

When high school was not required, the world was very different - much more agricultural and less industrial. Kids were needed to help out on the family farm, etc.
 

MissCleo

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
I believe the that the argument against mandatory high school stems from the atmosphere that disruptive students create. Using my experiences from school and the stories my mother tells me from teaching, there are students who are so disruptive, that introduces near chaos within the classroom thereby making it nearly impossible for the teacher to teach and the students to learn. These kids are then thrown out of the classroom, evenutally suspended, and on repeat offenses, expelled from the school. I do believe that school should be mandatory even if the student doesn't want to go and act in such a manner. Kids who want to learn should not have to put up with the mess that is created by kids who dont want to learn. So, there should be options within a school system to deal with students with such behavioral problems. .
 

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
I think High School should definitely be mandatory. There are things you learn and take away from high school other then just the "book learning". One learns important social skills which can be difficult to learn in other circumstances.

I was extremely lucky and attended one of the best public high schools in my province. When you started in grade 8, you were required to take Lifeskills (Cooking, Sewing, Woodwork, etc), and your only choice of elective was either Fine Arts (Art, Drama, Dance, etc.) or Music (Band or Orchestra). To graduate, you then had to complete a Lifeskills elective and a Fine Arts electives or 2 lifeskills electives. Every student would end up leaving the school with at least some basic cooking knowledge, some basic sewing knowledge, and some basic shop knowledge. I think taking programs like this out of schools is a travesty. Perhaps things like this should be learned in the home, but that fact is that not all students have parents who are willing to teach them, or even have the skills themselves! We also had 3 CAPP courses (Career and Personal Planning) that we had to complete to graduate. We learned Sex Ed, Resume Building, Cover Letter Building, Interview skills, etc. These courses we were required to take could, unfortunately, be the first courses on the chopping block if TPTB decided that more time is needed for more academic courses. This would greatly upset me because I think they are just as, if not more, valuable to the average student.

Perhaps Canada does need to put a more rigorous Math curriculum in place, but if that comes at the expense of courses like I outlined above, I'll pass.
 

Ladskater

~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Do you think high school should be optional or mandatory?

Oh boy that is a "no brainer." If you want to carry on to College or University, a High School Diploma is mandatory. Also not many employers will hire someone without at least a High School Diploma. Some parents do opt for "home schooling" here in Vancouver and the lower mainland. No matter, Grade twelve is a MUST....
 

Johar

Medalist
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Many fast food and other restaurants won't hire unless you are in high school or have graduated from there. They don't want the dropouts anymore.
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I believe education should be mandatory until the age of 17, but I do not believe that high school should be mandatory. Many kids who do not do well in high school do very well in community colleges - I believe strongly in increasing such opportunities. Also, let's no kid ourselves - kids who only stay in high school because it's the law will not go to college. In fact, they will end up with a rather useless high school diploma. I believe, therefore, that we should go back to having strong vocational schools that provide basic academics (enough to pass the MCAS test or whatever other states have with confidence) but that also provide the teenager with a trade. I know that some school districts (in particular in upstate New York) have those, but unfortunately the more liberal states such as our Massachusetts believes that vocational schools deprive kids of academic opportunities and create more inequality; in reality, of course, this lack just means that high school diploma becomes ever more meaningless and does not guarantee much beyond a McDonalds job to the graduates. Most European countries have some kind of a division between a college prep school and more of a vocational training; I believe some of those can be used as models, with more flexibility inherent to the American system built in (what I mean is that in Germany, for example, once you are on the vocational track it's next to impossible to switch to the college track; this wouldn't work in the US, so more flexibility would have to be build int).
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Vocational considerations aside, I think it is better to be a well educated person than to be an ignorant dummy.

It is better to know something about history than not to know anything about history.

It is better to know something about biology and literature and economics than not to know anything about any of these subjects.

As for mathematics...

Mathematics is the jewel in the crown of human intellectual achievement. It provides a model and template for all rational thought. Its clarity, precission, and standard of proof are the envy of all other acedemic disciplines.

That's what I think. :biggrin:
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Shy, aren't you? :) I do have to admit I always preferred Math to science - in physics, there just seem to be so many elements you can't control, whereas Mathematics are indeed about pure logic. [size=-2](Of course, my husband the physicist by education would respond that mathematics can be understood by any intelligent person, whereas you brain has to be special to understand physics beyond a certain level.)[/size]

In a perfect world, I'd fully agree with you. Unfortunately, that's not where we live. You can lead a child to class, but you can't make them learn. Also, I think the current HS system insists on treating students as children - well, humans react to this! When treated as immature babies, teenagers tend to behave just that way! At 16, many are very mature individuals, dealing with very adult issues outside school. You can't expect them to take this condescension seriously, now can you? (Oh, can you tell I had issues with my HS? :laugh:)
 
Last edited:

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
There was one high school in my school district that offered more vocational type programs than just a traditional high school. On average, the students at this school were from less affluent homes and were less likely to move on to university or college education. The school offered both a hair-dressing and a culinary program in conjunction with fulfilling high school graduation requirements for the province. If I remember correctly, the kids who finished these programs would have their high school diploma and another diploma related to the field they studied (hair-dressing or culinary). I definitely think that high school should be mandatory, but I agree that it just doesn't work for some kids. Maybe schools with programs like this should be more common!
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
[size=-2]Of course, my husband the physicist by education would respond that mathematics can be understood by any intelligent person, whereas you brain has to be special to understand physics beyond a certain level..)[/size]

Yes, that is absolutely true. That is why we should not be afraid to emphasize mathmatics more in the grade school and high school curricula.

The jewel in the crown belongs to everyone. You do not have to have a special brain to own it. :)

I look at it this way. In the olden days, only rich people had a chance to go to school. People who were so poor that they had to work for a living -- which is 99.9% of the population at any place or time -- could not.

Now schooling is both essential and free. Sounds good to me. :yes:
 
Last edited:

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Yes, that is absolutely true. That is why we should not be afraid to emphasize mathmatics more in the grade school and high school curricula. :)
Well, I've been watching the phenomenon in Boston called "Russian School of Mathematics" (http://www.russianschool.com/ - you may find their "about" statement interesting, as well as their "problem of the week") - I sometimes help them out with some of their extra-extra-curricular activities. They are essentially an after school/ weekend program that gives math instruction to kids; classes are in English, and there has been an increasing number of non-Russian students there - first the Chinese, then the Indians, and now Americans as well (I think it's about 50/50 now). Kids from RSM breeze through SATs (well, that's not hard to do!) and generally do well with APs and other classes. What I find interesting (which they won't advertise, of course) is that their program really isn't all that necessary for the really talented kids who grasp the concepts quickly and whose problem in math classes is one of boredom. However, they do absolute miracles for kids who've always been labeled "bad in math" - my masseuse's son, for example, a very mediocre student who was failing even the Curriculum 2 math ended up breezing through his SATs (he didn't get to calculus, but he quite well with pre-calc, I believe). In talking to the teachers, you discover quickly that their "trick" is in really explaining things step by step by step. They believe that the grade school math in this country tends to go too slowly; then, once curriculum jumps to algebra, it becomes a "sink or swim", and many kids sink because they were never really taught to think (OK, so I couldn't resist the pun - sorry). They, however, do things more gradually, so the student doesn't really meet those insurmountable obstacles. Really makes you wonder what could be done for the general student popualtion with a different approach!
 

jennylovskt

Medalist
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Vocational considerations aside, I think it is better to be a well educated person than to be an ignorant dummy.

It is better to know something about history than not to know anything about history.

It is better to know something about biology and literature and economics than not to know anything about any of these subjects.

As for mathematics...

Mathematics is the jewel in the crown of human intellectual achievement. It provides a model and template for all rational thought. Its clarity, precission, and standard of proof are the envy of all other acedemic disciplines.

That's what I think. :biggrin:

Totally agree!:agree: Even though you might not be an historian, or a biotechnician, or a novelist, or an economist, or a mathematician, or a musician, or ... It's better to be well educated. It might not have direct, or tangible relationship with what you would do when you are an adult, but these educations have given you not only the basic knowledge but also the valuable way of thinking, the way of standing on a higher ground to view a larger picture, to make you a better person.

I do not agree to cut down high school education and have vocational school replace the regular high school. The only reason that a high school diploma is "useless" is not because the school didn't teach what the students should learn, it's because the education is not high enough.

They believe that the grade school math in this country tends to go too slowly; then, once curriculum jumps to algebra, it becomes a "sink or swim", and many kids sink because they were never really taught to think

That's what I firmly believe. More and more parents have realized it, so they have sent their kids after school or on weekend to have extra math education in private schools or with tutors as early as their kids are in elementary school.
 
Last edited:

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I do not agree to cut down high school education and have vocational school replace the regular high school. The only reason that a high school diploma is "useless" is not because the school didn't teach what the students should learn, it's because the education is not high enough.
First of all, let me just say that it's highly ironic for me (a left-leaning centrist) to be arguing this point with you. Here is goes anyway.The liberal argument goes that vocational schools breed inequality because their graduates are less likely to go on to college and end up with a good job. However, what in fact happens is that kids who do not want to be there do not go on to college anyway, and end up with no job at all. Vocational training allows one to get a decent job, even if the good job may stay out of reach without the college degree. Nor should college ever be out of question - a vocational school graduate with a diploma of a nursing assistant may get inspired enough to get into a full nursing program down the line.

The way to ensure that more kids do well in HS and go on to college is by fighting poverty; it's by programs such as Head Start that do a great job but that are unfortunately way too short (kids from Head Start have significantly higher IQ than their peers from the same socioeconomic group at kindergarten, yet the difference disappears by high school - wouldn't it make more sense to continue investing in those kids past pre-school and make sure the original investment doesn't just go to waste?) There have been numerous studies suggesting reasons why the poor do less well academically; the latest one (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/27/0811910106.abstract) is truly fascinating, suggesting that stress which disproportionately affects the poor even at a young age, cause people to have worse working memory - working memory, of course, is necessary to commit explicit information to memory. Another study pointed out that kindergartners from the less educated classes often don't know how to focus their eyes on the page because they have never been read to. All this suggests that teachers at advantaged schools should be more attuned to the unique challenges of their students; with enough resources put in intelligently it is possible to narrow this achievement gap significantly. What I do not believe is that it is worth the trouble to keep a 16-y-o who refuses to learn in school.
 

jennylovskt

Medalist
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
First of all, let me just say that it's highly ironic for me (a left-leaning centrist) to be arguing this point with you. Here is goes anyway.The liberal argument goes that vocational schools breed inequality because their graduates are less likely to go on to college and end up with a good job. However, what in fact happens is that kids who do not want to be there do not go on to college anyway, and end up with no job at all. Vocational training allows one to get a decent job, even if the good job may stay out of reach without the college degree. Nor should college ever be out of question - a vocational school graduate with a diploma of a nursing assistant may get inspired enough to get into a full nursing program down the line..

I don't know where liberals and conservatives stand on this topic. I think to choose between vocational school and high school - college is indeed too hard and unfair for a teenager. In most cases, the decision they have to make in such early age is irreversable. What if they realized, 10 years later, that they wanted to go on colleges, they have never had the basic high school education and it is almost impossible. They might go back to finish high school diploma in adult's programs. Even if they do that, the chance of going into college and the chance of finishing college are much less because they have lost the precious young age when their brain would have been more actively engaged with whatever knowledge they get. Therefore, going into college might only be remained as a dream for the rest of their lives.

I think vocational school after high school is a good option for someone who do not want or cannot go to college. It gives a choice for high school graduates and it will not create a big knowledge and ability gap in general population.

The way to ensure that more kids do well in HS and go on to college is by fighting poverty; it's by programs such as Head Start that do a great job but that are unfortunately way too short (kids from Head Start have significantly higher IQ than their peers from the same socioeconomic group at kindergarten, yet the difference disappears by high school - wouldn't it make more sense to continue investing in those kids past pre-school and make sure the original investment doesn't just go to waste?)

I don't know about Head Start. We have a program called TAG (Talented and Gifted) that starts from grade one all the way to grade twelve. The content of the program and the way it runs are debatable but they gave the opportunity to the high IQ students, who find the regular class too easy, to challenge themselves and learn earlier and learn faster.

There have been numerous studies suggesting reasons why the poor do less well academically; the latest one (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/27/0811910106.abstract) is truly fascinating, suggesting that stress which disproportionately affects the poor even at a young age, cause people to have worse working memory - working memory, of course, is necessary to commit explicit information to memory. Another study pointed out that kindergartners from the less educated classes often don't know how to focus their eyes on the page because they have never been read to. All this suggests that teachers at advantaged schools should be more attuned to the unique challenges of their students; with enough resources put in intelligently it is possible to narrow this achievement gap significantly.

You might be right. I don't know. I have never studied this. But I have to say that no matter the income level, the families who emphasis the importance of learning and who created good learning environment, their kids tend to study better than the families who don't. On this one, I am with your president Obama. His mother (and father) planted "a good education is so important" seed in him since he was very young, before school age. His mother used to wake him up at 4am to teach him English before she went to work and he went to the local school in Indonesia. I didn't mean that everyone should wake their kids up at 4am to study. What I mean is that his parents' expectation on learning kept the young Obama going and formed the earliest idea which would become the base of his thinking later in his life. Obama said every family has to take the responsibility. Turn off the TV while your child is studying. I have found that many North Americans think that they have sent their kids to school, the school should be solely responsible for their kids study. The families who hold this belief, their kids studies are not as good as the families who involve in.

What I do not believe is that it is worth the trouble to keep a 16-y-o who refuses to learn in school.

How and what does a 16 year old know?!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I don't know about Head Start. We have a program called TAG (Talented and Gifted) that starts from grade one all the way to grade twelve. The content of the program and the way it runs are debatable but they gave the opportunity to the high IQ students, who find the regular class too easy, to challenge themselve and learn earlier and learn faster.

Head Start is rather the opposite. Although the program is open to anyone, their clientele for the most part comprises children from homes and communtties where the children are already behind their peers before they enter kindergarten.

Pticha is quite right. Every study of the program has concluded that Head Start is successful in the sense its clients do better in the first and second grades than do children of similar backgrounds that were not in the program. But without a follow-up program they quickly fall back into the morass with eveyone else.

My sister was a Head Start teacher for many years, serving the communities in the state of Washington where the migrant farm workers eventually settled who came to California to escape the "dust bowl" famine in the midwest in the 1930s (think Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath.) The majority of her children come to her having suffered abuse and neglect so severe that the State had to intervene. Part of her job, besides teaching children, was regularly to visit the homes of these children, often taking her life in her hands. (Not all Head Start programs are of this type.)

Head Start is still in business, despite the annual effort of the Bush administration to do away with it. :yes:

But I have to say that no matter the income level, the families who emphasis the importance of learning and who created good learning environment, their kids tend to study better than the families who don't.

Indeed. How could it possibly be otherwise?

So the societal question is, how can we best educate children who do not have the advantage of coming from such homes?

How and what does a 16 year old know?!

I agree. It is our responsibility as adults to tell children what they need to know. Even if one of the things we know is that they are not going to listen to us.
 
Last edited:

show 42

Arm Chair Skate Fan
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I've been a school teacher for 37 years and although I see the importance of a high school diploma for those going on to college, I also see the need for vocational and trade school options for those who don't wish to pursue a higher education. Schools were first developed for "scholars" and not everyone fits into the academic lifestyle. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be educated with the basics of math, reading, history, etc., but a student who wishes to be a plumber doesn't need to read "Antigone" to change a washer.............42
 
Top